January 17, 2003. A visitor to
the
circles of stones that cover the ground in parts of Alaska and the
Norwegian islands of Spitsbergennear might think that
Andy
Goldworthy had been there. How could natural forces create anything so
specific, yet so improbable? Mark Kessler of the Earth Sciences Department
at the University of California, Santa Cruz, think he has the answer to
that question.

The patterns result from the
interplay of two mechanisms: lateral sorting, which moves soil towards
areas of high soil concentration and stones toward areas of high stone
concentration; and squeezing of stone domains, which causes stones to move
within linear piles of stones and lengthens these lines of stones.

Is it really possible that Nature could appear to be
governed by intelligent design, yet actually be governed by unconscious
mechanisms? What a concept!

January 17, 2003.Roughly one
out of every 20,000 people operated on in the U.S. leaves the operating
room with a medical tool or supply mistakenly left sewed up inside them,
according to the results of a study published in last Thursday's New England
Journal of Medicine. Actually, that statistic is the one I
extrapolated from an extrapolation found on the CNN site that says there
are 1,500 patients leaving with sponges or instruments in them and that is
out of some 28,000,000 operations. The NEJM study actually only
"included 54 patients with a total of 61 retained foreign bodies...and 235
control patients." The risk of taking home a little extra increases for
"fat" (CNN) or "higher mean body-mass index" (NEJM) patients and
for those who have emergency surgery.

January 10, 2003. Silver scams
are spreading like gold dust among the alternative health community,
according to
Wired.com.
[thanks to David Martin]

January 9, 2003. There is
some hope, after all. Tribune Media Services, owner of WGN superstation
and the Chicago Cubs, has fired
James Van Praagh. Not
really. But they have announced they are not going to do any more new
programs for his show Beyond with
James Van Praagh, in which he claims to get messages from the dead
before a live audience. Donna Harrison, a Tribune executive, said: "We
were hoping this...would have the broad-based appeal that would make it
viable in today's highly competitive daytime environment. Unfortunately,
the marketplace was not as responsive to 'Beyond' as we had hoped...."
[thanks to Barry Karr]

January 8, 2003. In today's
Salon.com, Janet McDonald, a black woman from the projects in Brooklyn
who grew up to be a lawyer and writer living in Paris, writes about her
feeling of being ripped-off by alleged psychic
Sylvia Browne. She tries to answer the question "Why do smart people do
dumb things?" McDonald was led to Browne by Larry King, the greatest
promoter of quack psychics in America.
[thanks to Siobhán Silke]

January 2, 2003.Famous
astrologer
Syndey
Omarr died today. A Leo, his own
horoscope for today read: "Get work done early; check records, correct
any mathematical error. Later you beat the odds, much to the
astonishment of experts. At the track: Choose number 4 post position
in fourth race." He was 76. The cause of death? Complications from a heart
attack.
[thanks to John Farley]

December 20, 2002. San
Francisco may become the first major U.S. City to ban psychic fraud. An
ordinance outlawing deception by psychics to defraud clients has been
proposed by Supervisor Aaron Peskin. Apparently it is currently legal to
tell a person her money is cursed and that you will bury it for her even
though you intend to keep the money for personal use. The new ordinance
will not ban psychics (of which there are now 105 in the city, according
to
SFGate), tarot card readers, astrologers, etc. but will charge them
$500 for a license. The city will deny a license to "convicted swindlers
and thieves." The ordinance is not aimed at discouraging "legitimate,
modestly priced psychics, seers, tarot card readers or sellers of fortune
cookies," said Peskin.

December 14, 2002.Gary Schwartz
might deserve the nickname "bulldog." He has responded to Ray Hyman's
critique of his so-called "Afterlife Experiments" with a snarling, biting
attack on Hyman's motives (he wants to disprove anything he doesn't
believe in), method of arguing (he is selective in his presentation of
evidence against Schwartz), and his understanding of what Schwartz claims
(he didn't claim to prove life after death). Hyman's article, "How Not to
Test Mediums," is published in Skeptical Inquirer (Jan-Feb,
2003). Schwartz posted nearly the entire article with his responses on the
Internet. He calls his post
"How Not
to Review Mediumship Research: Understanding the Ultimate Reviewer's
Mistake."
[thanks to Leroy Ellenberger by way of Marcello Truzzi]

As I said in my last
newsletter, the
University of Arizona at Tucson should be ashamed of Schwartz's work,
which is not deserving of the attention it is getting. I take an interest
in his work, and that of other spirit scientists such as
Raymond Moody and
Charles Tart, because they are cut from the same cloth as that of the
intelligent design (ID) folks,
who are out to destroy science as we know it. They think that
science should be about proposing and testing all hypotheses, not
just naturalistic ones. To them, science
is not natural science, but is much
broader and includes theology and philosophy.

For example, Schwartz writes:

When the total set of findings
are considered, the simplest and most parsimonious explanation that
presently accounts for the largest amount of the data - including the
extraordinary observations or "dazzle" shots - is the survival of
consciousness hypothesis....

....I have made the statement
that the survival consciousness hypothesis does account for the totality
of the research data to date. Of course, this does not make the survival
hypothesis the only or correct hypothesis - my statement reflects the
status of the evidence to date, not necessarily the truth about the
underlying process. This is why more research is needed.

At first glance, these claims might appear quite
reasonable, but examined closely their subversiveness becomes apparent.

It should be admitted that the spirits of the dead might
be sending clipped messages to various mediums,
including James Van Praagh, John Edward,
George Anderson, and even Sylvia Browne. It may be true that these
messages can be seen for what they truly are only when they are validated
by others who are able to find significance in the clipped messages and
attest to their accuracy. It may be true that when
mentalist Ian
Rowland
duplicated the work of mediums who get messages from the dead (by using
cold reading techniques) that he was
actually getting clipped messages from spirits unbeknownst to him. It may
be true that even if thousands of mentalists could duplicate the
performance of Schwartz's stars and produce "breathtaking" results, that
would not prove that the mentalists weren't getting messages from spirits,
nor would it prove that Schwartz's stars are getting their results by cold
reading techniques rather than because of spirit communication.

It is always possible that everything we observe or
do is directly influenced or caused by supernatural beings. That is, it is
logically impossible to prove that spirits can't be causing everything. No
observation or experience could disprove this hypothesis. There is nothing
logically contradictory about it, either. It is safe from ever being
proved false. Most philosophers would not stop there, but would also point
out that such a hypothesis can never be proved to any degree of
probability, either. Why? Because alternatives to it, such as the
hypothesis that there are no spirits influencing anything in the natural
world, are cut from the same epistemological cloth. Only if observation and
experience could be used to favor one hypothesis over the other, could we
reasonably conclude that one is more probable, and therefore more
plausible, than the other. What Schwartz and the ID folks believe
is that we can use science to determine when one metaphysical hypothesis
is more plausible than another.

The ID folks say

Look at this data (such as how
the human cell or a bacterium's flagellum works). What best explains the
data? Natural selection or intelligent design? Natural design can't.
Intelligent design can. So, ID is the more plausible hypothesis.

The spirit scientists say

Look at this data (such as the
accuracy of a medium in a controlled environment). What best explains the
data? Cold reading or survival of consciousness? Cold reading can't.
Survival of consciousness can. So, survival of consciousness is the more
plausible hypothesis.

Each of these arguments asks us to choose between two
alternatives that are not truly alternatives. We can see that they are not
alternatives by recognizing that the alleged alternatives are actually
compatible with each other. Natural selection or other naturalistic
theories may not be able to explain some biological phenomenon at present.
However, we can't legitimately rule out future discoveries and claim that
no naturalistic theory will ever be able to explain something
biological. But even if everything in Nature can be explained
naturalistically, that would not bear at all on the issue of whether there
is a designer of everything biological. Since this designer transcends the
natural world by definition, we can't exclude a priori the possibility
that the designer has created everything according to certain natural
laws.

Likewise, cold reading may not be able to explain some of
the feats of mediums. However, we can't legitimately rule out future tests
where anything a medium can do a cold reader can do better. But even if
the work of every medium could be explained by cold reading, that would
not bear at all on the issue of whether there is survival of
consciousness. Since spirits transcend the natural world by definition, we
can't exclude a priori the possibility of spirits working in ways that are
indistinguishable from the ways of mentalists doing cold readings.

December 9, 2002.There was
big news this week but I was too busy editing a big manuscript to make
note of it: Bigfoot is dead, so to speak. Ray L. Wallace died on November
26th at the age of 84, but the
Seattle Times didn't get around to an obit until December 5th. In
August 1958, Wallace, an inveterate prankster, had a friend carve him
16-inch-long feet he could strap on and make prints with. He owned a
construction company that built logging roads at the time and he set the
prints around one of his bulldozers in Humboldt Country, California. Jerry
Crew, a bulldozer operator, reported the prints "of huge naked feet
circling and walking away from his rig." The Humboldt Times in
Eureka ran a front-page story on the prints and coined the term "Bigfoot."
A legend was born.

December 1, 2002. Two
readers have informed me that this week's South Park--where Lord of the
Flies meets Peanuts--featured a ribald critique of
John Edwards's dead-men-talking routine. I
missed this episode, but admit to having a fondness for the crude and
cruel little imps. Apparently, the little ones called Edward "a liar, a
fraud, and a douche," not necessarily in that order, as they put forth
their thesis that psychics are frauds who
use cold reading to con people into
thinking they have paranormal abilities.
One reader found it interesting and hilarious that South Park would
reinforce the Skeptic's Dictionary. I found a website called the
South Park Scriptorium that
has some information on this episode. It's labeled Episode 615: The
Biggest Douche in the Universe and gives the following description

When a famous psychic fails to
help him exorcise Kenny from his body, Cartman takes other steps to
achieve his goal. He and Chef travel to the moors of Scotland, where
Chef’s mom tries a little of her voodoo magic on him to help him achieve
his goal. Meanwhile, after the boys' encounter with the TV psychic, Kyle
is paralyzed with fear at the thought of members of the spirit world
watching over him. Only by debunking those who claim they can communicate
with the dead can Stan save Kyle.

This doesn't sound quite like my style, but if somebody
finds synchronicity here, who am I to disagree?

November 28, 2002. UFO
enthusiasts should be happy to know that the British government is about
to publish the "Rendlesham
File" along with other files on reported UFO sightings. But the file may
not resolve the dispute that began in 1980 between the folks in Rendlesham
Forest, Suffolk, eastern England, who claim to have seen a spaceship and
the skeptics who think they saw a meteor and a lighthouse.

Pat Robertson, the the leader in the race to be named leading
televangelic hypocrite for Jesus,
denounced the Koran today and blasted American journalists for being
afraid to condemn the book that encourages Muslims to kill non-believers.
Robertson also denounced President Bush for calling Islam "a religion of
peace."

Matt 7:3: You hypocrite! First, take the wood out of your own eye.
Then you will see clearly to take the dust out of your friend’s eye.***

Some of you may recall about four years ago it came to light that UNICEF,
the World Health Organization, and others had
poisoned with
arsenic tens of millions of people in Bangladesh. It wasn't done
intentionally, of course. Millions of dollars were poured into that country
to dig wells and provide fresh water to people who were used to drinking
from stagnant ponds and pools. Unfortunately, many of the wells were not dug
deeply enough and were contaminated with high levels of arsenic. When this
was discovered, all the wells were tested and those that had concentrations
of arsenic beyond what was deemed acceptable were painted red. Wells that
were deemed safe were painted green. To compound the tragedy, it turns out
that fifty percent of the red wells should have been painted green and over
7% of the green wells should have been painted red.
Scientific American has the story.

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, director of the
Center for Science and Culture
at the Discovery Institute, recently had a very misleading
article published in your newspaper (Nov. 11, 2002). The most
egregious deception was in the title: Intelligent Design vs. Darwinism:
Theories in Collision. Intelligent
Design is a philosophical argument, not a theory, and can’t collide
with natural selection—"Darwinism" is a polemical term used only
by ID adherents in their attack on evolution—in any meaningful sense because
natural
selection
is a scientific theory, not a philosophical argument.

Intelligent design is the argument that some things in nature could
not have happened by chance and can only be explained by appeal to an
intelligent designer. The argument claims that some things cannot be
explained by any naturalistic theory, i.e., by any scientific theory.
This kind of argument has been around in
philosophy for many centuries and it has often been pointed out that it
is fallacious because it begs the question.
In short, the argument assumes that the universe as a whole or certain
things in particular, such as the flagellum of a bacterium or the
workings of a human cell, cannot be explained by natural selection or any other
scientific theory. But this is what it claims to be proving! It assumes
that certain things can best be explained by appeal to an intelligent
designer. But this is what it claims to be proving!

Another deception in Meyer’s article is the way he tries to assert
that natural selection is a theory in crisis and that intelligent design offers
a viable and valuable criticism of natural selection. First, it is false to
claim that natural selection is a theory in crisis. But, if it were, the only
viable and valuable criticisms would come from challenges to the science
involved, not to the philosophical implications of the science. Meyer’s
Discovery Institute promotes the false belief that natural selection implies
that humans have no souls and that there is no God. natural selection does no
such thing. An evolutionist is free to believe that God creates souls
for humans (or for any other creature, for that matter), without
contradicting anything in the science of evolution.

Meyer and his colleagues have deceived the State Board of Education
in Ohio into thinking that Darwin’s ideas have never been challenged by
other scientists. Only someone completely ignorant of the history of
science could make such a claim. Intelligent design is philosophy, pure
and simple. It offers no cogent explanation of anything significant in
evolutionary biology and it certainly doesn’t offer an alternative to
any working scientific theory.

What should be recognized by the State Board of Education is that the
children of Ohio have a right to the best science education possible.
They, and apparently the majority of folks polled in Ohio, have been
deceived by people like Stephen Meyer into thinking that a weak
philosophical argument is actually a viable scientific theory.

Finally, Meyer is misleading when he notes that
natural selection is a
satisfying theory for an
atheist.
It is, but it should be noted that many people who do not begin with the
Bible as the guide to their science, as the Discovery Institute folks
do, have no trouble in believing both in God the Creator of the universe
and creator of human souls and also in evolution and the Big Bang.

The program was produced with the assistance of
CSICOP and the Skeptical Inquirer and has a
decidedly skeptical perspective on the issues. Last week's episode was
entitled "Foretelling the Future" and examined
psychics, palmistry,
Tarot cards,
astrology, and Nostradamus. The program
is not simply a debunking exercise.
Sylvia Browne, for example, got to reveal that she gets her powers
from God and she got to claim, without being challenged, that she has
helped the police solve
many crimes. A couple of astrologers and followers of Nostradamus also got
their say, but skeptics like
Bob Steiner and
Ray Hyman dominated the program. They didn't just debunk, however.
Hyman explained the psychology of deception and explored how things like
cold reading and
confirmation bias work on our minds. Bob
Steiner noted that even though psychics, astrologers, and palm and Tarot card
readers often give good advice, they don't help their clients learn how to
think through a problem so they might be better prepared to deal with the
next problem that comes their way.

The program airs on Monday nights at 8 pm. The Science
Channel folks will even send you a reminder by e-mail. Click "submit" at
the right bottom of their
reminder page.